Don't you mean they own the last mile [wikipedia.org]? Given that it's uneconomical to have loads of different companies constantly digging up the roads to wire up their own customers, then you have to choose either 1) the state lets a single company do it and regulates (what the UK has now) or 2) a state owned company does it (what the UK used to have). The interesting thing here is that in both cases the company was BT. A third possibility might be that the last mile infrastructure is communally owned but building and maintenance is put out to tender to private companies.

"A third possibility might be that the last mile infrastructure is communally owned"

A fourth possibility is they pay for it out of the cost to the people who need better connections outside of the major cities.

Getting others to pay for it is nuts. Also where does this thinking end? Can the government simply choose ever more ways to tax people to give to yet more companies to partially fund what the company should be earning from the sale of its products.

Also they are selling a rubbish product. 2Mbits is obsolite now. So do they then come back in a few years time, to take even more money to pay to upgrade it to say 8Mbits... then come back again and again taking ever more money every few years. Each time taking millions more to pay for incremental upgrades.

What is it with the current UK government. Their greedy corrupt control freak attitude seems to have no end. I love how they spin it as (implied *just*) 50p-per-month levy. That sounds so much better than £6 (about $10) extra tax per year. The UK Government gives hundreds of billions to their rich banker friends and then their friends in telecoms also want some free extra money, so the Government decides to take some more money from people. Haven't they given enough already this year?!?. £6 may not be much when you have a job, but its a lot for the elderly on a pension. Also if someone walked up to you in the street and just tried to take that amount of money off you, everyone would complain about it, yet this government can just decide to take it wherever they wish.

Its not as if BT are short of money... "BT to freeze pay of 100,000 employees"... while "Ian Livingston, the chief executive, stands to make more than £6 million in bonuses this year if performance targets are met. This is on top of his basic salary of £850,000."... Its a corrupt arragant UK government giving millions more to an arragant corrupt boss treating his staff with contempt.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/telecoms/article5890128.ece [timesonline.co.uk]

Also they are selling a rubbish product. 2Mbits is obsolite now. So do they then come back in a few years time, to take even more money to pay to upgrade it to say 8Mbits... then come back again and again taking ever more money every few years. Each time taking millions more to pay for incremental upgrades.

Get serious. Nobody's going to run fiberoptics to every farm on the countryside, if they tried you'd be paying 600 GBP instead of 6 GBP. Many people outside population centers are still stuck on dialup, and ADSL would be a big upgrade. At least if they mean 2Mbit and not "up to" in the week with three sundays. Broadband is probably one of the most disproportionally distributed services, everywhere you can get power and water and phones but 10Mbit+ lines is almost exclusively in big cities.

Many people outside population centers are still stuck on dialup..."
So what? Living in a suburban or rural area has its advantages and disadvantages. If the residents of an area want to have higher speed Internet access, then they can petition their local government to have a referendum in which the local residents determine if they want to fund the necessary infrastructure.

Broadband is probably one of the most disproportionally distributed services, everywhere you can get power and water and phone

UK consumers now believe broadband is becoming as essential a utility as electricity or water, according to a panel of government advisers. Some 73% of those questioned described a high-speed connection as important.

73% of the UK believe they have a severely impaired quality of life without broadband; and compare the lack of it to having a lack of fresh running water. That's what the article says, and that's what I was pointing out.

Hey, I can afford 50p a month and if it actually goes toward dragging our country into the 21st Century, then I'm fine with it. I don't care if I have to subsidize a few people out in the countryside. The more people that have a decent connection, the better for UK businesses that rely on it. It also inches us toward telecommuting being viable which (a) reduces congestion in and out of the cities, (b) reduces the environmental impact on all of us and (c) lowers housing costs in built up areas.

But mainly it's just that it's 50p a month. If the government came round all our doors and asked for £6.00 to improve our country's broadband infrastructure, I'd happily stick it in the tin so long as I knew the money wasn't disappearing into BT's (or any other one company's) bank account.

Its not as if BT are short of money... "BT to freeze pay of 100,000 employees"... while "Ian Livingston, the chief executive, stands to make more than £6 million in bonuses this year if performance targets are met. This is on top of his basic salary of £850,000."... Its a corrupt arragant UK government giving millions more to an arragant corrupt boss treating his staff with contempt.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/telecoms/article5890128.ece [timesonline.co.uk]

No, its not as if BT are short of money, but why should they suffer the cost of a non profitable market sector? You can already gain access to the last mile infrastructure, but the problem is no third party has done it for these outlying areas. So why should BT?

A fourth possibility is they pay for it out of the cost to the people who need better connections outside of the major cities.

If you follow that line of thinking then may be people who live in outside major cities should pay more road tax or may be cancer patients should pay more for expensive drugs. We generally have fair minded policies in the UK and recognise that what you loose on supporting others you gain by what they contribute to you. If dairy farmers have to pay more for braodband (and they have to use things like the Cattle Movement Service on line) then they will put that on the price of milk, or go out of business. How about next time you vist Scotland the broadband in the hotel costs 10x as much as in a city?

What's a stake here is really the ability to distribute internet TV. We will all be better off if TV moves to internet rather than broadcast which requires high energy radio transmission and all the attendant cost. But you can't move to internet only TV unless everyone is on broad band. It would be a lot better to stop the digital TV roll-out and use that money to fund braodband.

BT is restricted in how much it can wholesale ADSL lines for - and the companies taking advantage of LLU (Local Loop Unbundling) at the exchange seem to have cherry picked all the good, profitable sites (large towns, cities and the like) and left the outlying areas well alone.

So I don't think its altogether fair to round on BT for this - the option for other companies to freely compete in these areas has been around for several years, and it has failed. So why should BT be forced to supply ADSL to outlying areas in a lossmaking fashion when no one else will?

BT does not horrendously overcharge for bandwidth, the rates they can charge to other competitors is heavily regulated by OFCOM in the UK. If ISPs are not charging what it actually costs to provide the service, then the problem is the ISP and not BT nor the user.

You are coming across as someone who is a BT shill, or you directly benefit from BT's position in the market and abusive business practices, or are someone fighting with their conscience for voting for Thatcher for years, or are just an idiot who uncritically parrots BT's lies.

Ahh right, I disagree with your position so I am either paid by BT to do so, receive revenue from BTs actions, voted for Thatcher, or am just generally an idiot.

It can't *possibly* be that I have an opinion that differs from your own, now can it? No, it can't, because that obviously isn't allowed. This seems to be a common theme on Slashdot these days - I'm not allowed to take a stance different from yours, because obviously anyone that does has something to benefit from it.

They weren't granted ownership of anything, the government *sold* the infrastructure when they privitised British Telecom. Oh, and the government also paid Mercury Communications a not insignificant sum of money to put in a second national network during the 1980s - that network became Cable & Wireless, and thus Virgin Media. Tell me this - where is the requirement for Virgin Media to wholesale their lines?

Plus, BTs mandate only extends to universal service for phone systems and 14.4Kbit/sec capabl

BT still owns the all the backbone connectivity and makes obscene profits on it.

Supposedly, though, the quid pro quo for BT inheriting a near-monopoly from the old, state-funded infrastructure is that they are under a Universal Service Obligation [ofcom.org.uk] that requires them to provide telephone serviced to all, and not to cherry pick.

Unfortunately, this only applies to Plain Old Telephone Services - and extending it to Broadband would vastly increase the cost...

So will the tax money eventually be 'payed back' to the tax payer? In other words, at some point someone will profit from these new pipes at the expense of the taxpayer. Why aren't they demanding compensation for the cost they are fronting?

When it's raining i lose
another 2 Mbps and that's often here in the UK.

When it's raining my friend TOTALLY loses his internet connection. No, he's not in the middle of no-where, his exchange is about 4 miles away and BT refuse to do anything about it (or even admit there is a problem).

I hate to be a grammar nazi, but it is "lose" not "loose". Unless you have flappy tubes.

the point is that most people get more than that, unless they live far away from the exchange. People who live in the wilds, for example.

I get 7mbps, but to be fair, I'd happily pay 50p a month extra if it meant they laid fibre everywhere (my house in the metropolis first please) and I got 20mbps:) I'd even pay £1 more for something even faster...

I'm on 3mbit, and I don't mind. I'd prefer more speed, but 3mbit is actually enough to watch HD stuff off gametrailers.com, and finish downloads reasonably fast. If I need to download something big, like a steam game, I can always leave my computer on overnight.

Much more important than raw speed - the amount of bandwidth. I get 200GB/mo, which is very difficult to use up entirely. Somehow I doubt the UK/BT will give its customers that much.

Chances are it'll be closer to what I get from Sky for free as part of their "See, Speak, Surf" package: 2Mb/s and a 2GB/mo cap. 2Mb/s seems fast enough for everything I do (the round-trip response seems to be the longest part at times!) and somewhere around 2GB isn't unreasonable for most people's usage (I run a few websites on top of normal browsing, but the only times I think I have gone over were downloading Linux Live CDs).

High-speed broadband for everyone is a great idea, but when people are still mak

[S]omewhere around 2GB isn't unreasonable for most people's usage (I run a few websites on top of normal browsing, but the only times I think I have gone over were downloading Linux Live CDs).

2GB is enough if all people do is email and websites (but then, dial-up is enough for that...). As soon as you step into the 21st century, it is woefully underproportioned even if you don't do big downloads: 2GB per month is just enough for 1 hour/day of internet radio or skype OR 15 mins/day of low-rez Youtube. If someone actually wanted to use the BBC iPlayer that he paid for with his TV tax, his quota would be used up within an afternoon...

Moreover, patches for OS, programs and games are now hundreds of megabytes big. For example, just new firmware for iphone is around 250MB.

Funny thing happened when I was away for two weeks depending only on a laptop with usb stick for mobile wireless. I have 500MB/month subscription and just after 5 days of my light surfing and mailing I was disconnected for doing more than 500MB. What happened? When I was away from the computer there was some OSX update and it eat all my monthly allowance. Btw, there shoul

At 2Mb/s, I'd say the entire country gets punished right from the start. This sort of speed is okay, but it's hardly the future.

Point taken, but my father-in-law is stuck on dial up, because, here in the US, we're waiting for the cable company to decide that it is economically feasible to provide service in his area. He would kill for 2Mb/s.

Instead of the gov' taxing people and placing down public broadband lines companies can compete over... They're literally handing a giant check to the existing two big broadband network suppliers (cable and DSL) and asking them to put down the lines. So in the long term they're just giving the broadband networks a larger subscriber base without any real public benefit.

There is nothing wrong with the tax but what they're using it for is flawed. It will lead to monopolies in most areas, or at best two options to pick from that both charge similar rates and provide similar services.

They're giving the money to BT (DSL) and Virgin (cable). BT is a private for-profit company and as such will limit what it will allow competition to do and set the prices higher than a public network. Virgin [Media] doesn't allow people to use their network at all.

A public network is always the right answer. You set up the cables, maintain them, and then set the fees based on what you're paying to keep it up-and-running.

With your hugely sarcastic post you also didn't address why these private for-private companies should be getting a huge check out of the pocket of tax payers? Or a better question, why they're getting a huge check which they can then turn around and use to make EVERY MORE money? It is just handing them the keys to the vault.

Well I'm not sure about the case with Virgin, who don't share their lines, but BT is obliged to, as the GP somewhat rudely said. So at least in terms of BT, who own all the non-cable last mile infrastructure in the country, it's not handing them alone a gift, although they will profit from it, it's also a gift to all the ADSL providers that use BT's infrastructure (at least the last mile), which is all of them.

Still, I'm not sure what a better solution is tbh, considering the current situation. A better contract at the time of privatisation would have been a solution, but that horse has bolted.

A public network is always the right answer.... With your hugely sarcastic post you also didn't address why

He addressed it as well as your outright assertion without any arguement to back it up. BT was a public company, the reason it was privatised was exactly because it wasn't perceived to be very good. The price of broadband in the UK has decreased hugely over the last couple of years, not least because of the competitive market. I won't make the case that private industry is better because it minimises waste often found in public companies, or that public owned is better because they don't have the motivation to profit gouge like private companies, either can work, especially when placed in a competitive environment.

"BT was a public company, the reason it was privatised was exactly because it wasn't perceived to be very good"

With all due respect I think you need to unpack that sentence a bit. I don't think BT was privsatised because "it wasn't perceived to be very good", I think one of the main reasons it was privatised was because the government of the time - the right wing conservative party - adhered to a strategy of privatising public companies whereever possible.

They're giving the money to BT (DSL) and Virgin (cable). BT is a private for-profit company and as such will limit what it will allow competition to do and set the prices higher than a public network.

BT is tightly controlled on what it can and cannot do with regard to its infrastructure and allowing other companies to have access to it - there are fairly low upper limits to the pricing structure that BT can use to wholesale its lines, and there is always the option of Local Loop Unbundling.

The problem is, it always ends up with the profitable areas being cherry picked by providers, and the outlying areas being left in the cold. In these situations you have two options - subsidise BT to provide a loss making line, or have the government form a public entity to provide connectivity using wholesale or LLU lines.

History, at least in the states, show that the government will siphon off as much as possible for other pet projects then raise their hands in ignorance and claim there isn't enough money to fix the roads, we need another tax. Then after the levies fail and people ask why it wasn't maintained better and the investigation showed that project that would have directly effected the failure points in the levies were diverted to build a couple of

Problem is BT estimates that it will cost upwards of Â£5Bn to do FttC.At 50p a month even if every household paid this.
It would still take 37.9 years to raise that amount. Its totally pointless, further more the problem in the UK is that all the politicans and BPI seem to have gotten it in their heads that all file-sharing is illegal regardless of whether it is family videos or the latest cinema release.

That 50p extra per month they want to charge me is exactly the 50p they gave me back a few months ago when they dropped the VAT on my Â£20 pcm broadband bill from Â£3 to Â£2.50. And now they want that back...

Oh wait, aren't they getting that back in December when they hike the VAT rate back up again? And that's assuming that it only goes back up to 17.5% rather than the 20% everyone's expecting...:(

Problem is BT estimates that it will cost upwards of ÃÂ£5Bn to do FttC.At 50p a month even if every household paid this. It would still take 37.9 years to raise that amount. Its totally pointless

The article says they are funding "fixed/wireless services", so that isn't what they're funding.

further more the problem in the UK is that all the politicans and BPI seem to have gotten it in their heads that all file-sharing is illegal regardless of whether it is family videos or the latest cinema release

No, you (and far too many other people) have gotten it into your head that they think that, and you won't let it go. Note that the government quote actually says "piracy of intellectual property" and not file sharing in general.

I know it's hard, and nobody really expects you to, but you should try reading the articles.

The fact that they are concentrating on Fibre to the Cabinet is a disaster too. It's already old hat, with other countries moving to Fibre to the Home/Premises.

It doesn't help that Virgin Media keeps lying about having "fibre optic" broadband. They don't - they have analogue fibre to their cabinets, then it's copper to the home. What we need is digital fibre all the way to the wall socket.

FttC is the reason why we are aiming so low (2Mb) instead of looking at more useful speeds. 2Mb is barely enough for one

I'm sure I recall something about US phone companies being given vast quantities of money - officially to lay on broadband, but there were no sanctions written in to say "failure to lay on broadband will result in the money being repayable" or similar.

Quite what happened with the money I don't know but it wasn't spent on broadband.

This actually *is* a good thing - if the money inmediately is used for the intended purpose: Bringing nation-wide Broadband fast. Which would mean that the runtime of this tax is limited to a few years, when every corner of the countryside has broadband.

This is actually quite different from the German GEZ fee for Internet capable devices. Which is bizar beyond anything concievable.

No , you've got it all wrong, see? If you make the tax end when the whole country has broadband, you give the politicians a reason to never let you have broadband--if you get it, they lose revenues. And then how will they pay for things they actually care about? Better to have the tax not take effect until after you have your broadband. Make them work for your money.

I'm sure goverments spend alot of time thinking of new ways to tax people, hell they'd tax breathing air and having sex if they could. I've never seen a tax that is rescinded, tax revenue to goverments is like heroin to a junkie.

This actually *is* a good thing - if the money inmediately is used for the intended purpose: Bringing nation-wide Broadband fast.

Unfortunately given the track record of our government, I can't say I'm hugely optimistic about that. This smells of the kind of private-public partnerships that our government is so fond of, where they can claim a low up-front cost for a scheme, but it ends up costing more than they thought, with the private companies raking it in at the tax payers expense. See for example the PFI hospital schemes [timesonline.co.uk] that Mr Brown championed so keenly. I expect the telcos in line to be involved in this are rubbing their hands with glee.

If you're going to do it, you just better make damn sure the government specifies hard benchmarks and deadlines for the companies getting the money. The government subsidized broadband development [pbs.org] in the U.S. too (to the tune of tens of billions of $), only to end up with a patchwork system where most people still don't have fiber to their homes and many don't have any broadband options at all. The fastest speed I can get on my DSL line is still only 3Mbps--and I live in an urban area, not out in the boonie

Good thing only in theory. But I always remember the example I can see from my windows. There is a big bridge connecting the shore and an island which was of build with public funds 30 years ago. They of course charge (and quite much) the crossing the bridge but they did promise that will go away as soon as the credit for the bridge is repaid (to banks I suppose). But you can almost guess what happened. People repaid for the bridge in just a couple of years but that charging didn't go away. They did buckle

>The Government says it will make it "easier and cheaper" for rights holders to take civil action against file sharers.>>What's more, it will "place an obligation on ISPs to maintain records of the most frequent offenders, which would allow rights holders to take targeted legal action against these >infringers.">>Finally, ISPs will be roped in to protect copyright material, restricting bandwidth to known filesharers, and even blocking access to certain protocols entirely.

The problem is, the next government, the Conservatives, are more than happy with Labour's proposals on filesharing.

They're going to happen regardless I'm afraid out with the old dictator, in with the new. As Cameron refuses a change from first past the post because he knows it guarantees him and his party 100% power even with only 38% of popular vote he IS a dictator, just like Brown was a dictator on 0% of the vote and Blair on 35%. But that's the problem with Britain, we live in a country where FP

Surely the problem here isn't that the UK government is trying to raise taxes to pay for something that has a massive social benefit, but that it's doing it via a poll tax? I pay as much towards this project as my millionaire friend and my grandmother who's on a small pension. Is it really that unfashionable to tax the rich?

The rich already make a disproportionate contribution in the form of heavy income tax.As far as I'm concerned, once they've done that they can then do what they like with what remains and should be able to do so on the same terms as everyone else.

Even though people with higher incomes are more likely to have broadband access? This just seems a crazy setup: people who are less able to pay the tax are being forced to pay at the same level as everyone else, and people who don't have any need for broadband but still want a phone line have to subsidise those of us who do want broadband!
I'm afraid I subscribe to the old idea that capitalism is an imperfect system and a progressive tax regime - with the rich getting taxed more than the poor, because thei

People with higher incomes are more likely to have most things. The richer they are the more they are going to spend. Which means they probably pay more in VAT in a month that you pay income tax in a year. And they've already paid a FAR bigger net percentage of their earnings in income tax than you.Now you want to tax them extra not only on what they earn but also on what they spend. Just how much subsidising do people need?

If bread was priced at a proportion of a person's income, then the poor would do a roaring trade on the black market by buying up loads of bread and selling it to the rich at twice the price they paid for it, but less than the rich would have to pay. It's an idiotic idea that doesn't take into account the market value of bread.

Broadband of course cannot be bought and sold like this because it's a service, not a product, and the physical aspects of it (i.e. infrastructure) is tied to geography.

I don't buy the small/big company thing, it's purely a matter of sector, I've telecommuted for a number of small firms. If anything, they're more likely to support it, rather than being entrenched in the old ways.

As for the second, if you can't afford a 50p on broadband, you've probably got more important things you should be spending your money on than broadband. Is a rich person going to use their broadband more than a poor person? I'm paid a reasonable amount, and I work bloody hard to earn it: why shoul

I don't agree with your first point. First of all, rarely benefits everybody equally (not directly, anyway); those that contribute less generally receive more. You wouldn't expect the highest earners and the unemployed to benefit equally from unemployment benefit, for example.

Second, I'm not sure large companies will be large beneficiaries of this scheme, since they tend to be based in urban areas. Small companies based in rural areas will find it much easier to remain in those rural areas and contribute

Surely the problem here isn't that the UK government is trying to raise taxes to pay for something that has a massive social benefit, but that it's doing it via a poll tax?

I think the theory is that such a small levy will be "competed away" (see Lord Carter quote in this article [bbc.co.uk]) and the people who will actually pay are the phone companies when they hand their monthly sack of 50p pieces over to the treasury.

However, while I'm sure that people who buy a line rental & calls package won't directly pay this levy, it will probably be paid by all the people (like myself) who want a minimal BT line for broadband, emergencies and those stupid fracking "local rate" 0845 numbers,

Why should the rich - or anyone else - pay for your home entertainment? And lets not kid ourselves that broadband is a vital public utility up there with water and electricty , it isnt, despite what some vested interests may proclaim. Apart from a few home workers its mostly used for recreation. Why should we be taxed on that??

The rich shouldn't pay for my TV or my internet. To reiterate: I wouldn't benefit if this tax was levied progressively; I'd end up paying more, in all likelihood. That's fair, because I'm more able to pay such a tax than a lot of other people.

I'm confused as to why people always think that progressive taxes will take money out of their pay packets. Wealth distribution is massively skewed and any fair taxation system would tax the richest and leave the regular people alone.

What do you have against the rich? Are you jealous of people who work hard and so earn more money? Most rich people do not have inherited wealth , they worked damn hard to get where they are so why should they cough up for lazy bastards who can't be bothered?

Also in most countries the more you earn the greater percentage you get taxed so the richer people do pay more than the poorer. I'm not sure what else you want? Perhaps everyone to earn the same as in stalinist russia? Brain surgeon earning the same as

I agree, plus we are effectively subsidising people who live outside cities - am I'm willing to bet that in general that the demographic of these people will not be towards the low end of the income scale.

According to the article, the government is going to be getting the ISPs to do their dirty work for them, whatever we have as an RIAA/MPAA equivalent, and the police:

it will "place an obligation on ISPs to maintain records of the most frequent offenders, which would allow rights holders to take targeted legal action against these infringers."

Sounds like they're making the ISPs track down the sharers so that the rights holders can just cherry-pick from a list. Sounds like a bad situation for the ISPs to get in to with things like "common carrier" statuses.

Finally, ISPs will be roped in to protect copyright material, restricting bandwidth to known filesharers, and even blocking access to certain protocols entirely.

Again, looks like the ISPs aren't just going to be "carriers" any more. Could be quite a bad precedent (for the ISPs, at least). Also, what's the betting that a) the protocol blocks will be a blanket ban on BitTorrent, meaning that legitimate downloads (like Linux ISOs) will also be affected and b) they'll do it in such a way that's easily circumventable?

According to the article, the government is going to be getting the ISPs to do their dirty work for them, whatever we have as an RIAA/MPAA equivalent, and the police:

That's exactly right. Reading chapter 4, it's clear that the only legislative change they will push for is to bring punishments for 'non-physical' copying in line with those already in place for 'physical copying'... but in both cases, only if the copying is done for SALE or HIRE or in the course of running a business (see s107 of the CDPA

If you think it's such a problem then make it a criminal offence. Don't force ISPs to do it for you.

Surely that's part of the problem - it already is a criminal offence to do most of the things that the government wants to cover with laws like this. Copyright infringement is already a crime, just not one with a particularly high punishment and so personal instances (e.g. BitTorrent usage for MP3s) isn't prosecuted much.

I hope you're right, but I think you might be a bit optimistic. Even if the Labour govern

This is why ISPs could freely implement deep packet inspection, phorm and so on without even asking anyone first as opposed to the US where the FCC etc. investigated usage of DPI in trying to disrupt Bittorrent.

For that reason the Government will also provide for backstop powers forOfcom to place additional conditions on ISPs aimed at reducing orpreventing online copyright infringement by the application of varioustechnical measures. In order to provide greater certainty for the developmentof commercial agreements, the Government proposes to specify in thelegislation what these further measures might be; namely: Blocking (Site, IP,URL), Protocol blocking, Port bl

The goals of Universal Service are:To promote the availability of quality services at just, reasonable, and affordable rates,To increase access to advanced telecommunications services throughout the Nation,To advance the availability of such services to all consumers, including those in low income, rural, insular, and high cost areas at rates that are reasonably comparable to those charged in urban areas.

Since theres now going to be a tax for the underclass and people who are too tight to pay for broadband themselves shall we assume there'll also need to be a tax for these people to be given computers to use on said service?

Just yeterday NPR had a bit about some kind of tax in Britain called "the license fee" that runs for about 200$ a year for every TV set owned by the Brits. And the money apparently goes to fund BBC. Once you pay 15$ a month to get Brit version of PBS, why not 50$ for all of the internet at full speed?

I would pay the licence fee (for BBC radio 3 and 4) if TVL (television licensing) weren't such complete pains.

Interestingly, it appears that the more uncooperative you are with them the less they hassle you. (Perhaps not surprising in that, AIUI, they actually achieve all their convictions due to self incrimination)

But the thought of the anguish it would cause if I bought a licence to support the BBC and then didn't renew it at some time in the future is sufficient to ensure that I'll never buy one. (I've a

The Carter Report is a fatally compromised blueprint for subversion that attempts to extend government control into a surprisingly vast array of areas.

1. Television. The existing licence fee is an outrage when the BBC via BBC Worldwide make heaps of money and yet refuse to make available their back catalogue for the benefit of the entire nation (well, they do but for a steep price). The report suggests we preserve the licence fee but siphon more off to commercial and quasi-commercial broadcasters?! Insane.

I really do not like the way that most news outlets say that "file sharing" is illegal. It's not. Sharing *copyrighted* files is but in itself, the act of sharing isn't. The distinction is an an important one as producers of open source and even some musicians use sharing to their advantage, but it seems to be getting increasingly lost in the noise.

The danger is that the credibility of these new models will be eroded over time with the repetition of the general concept that sharing is wrong.

They can say what they want, but next year the Tories will win and scrap most of this plan.

The Tories are not in bed with telcos, credit-card manufacturers and "creative industries", they have different sponsors (oil companies, "old money", etc). The flow of pork will be redirected accordingly. This report is hardly worth the digital paper it is printed on.

They want everyone to have high speed Internet access to a) let them view information on Government webistes more easily and b) so that they can go "look - we're improving the nation and bringing our communications technology up to date". Beyond that it depends what they intend to do with protocol blocking - they may allow legal filesharing to continue (e.g. Linux distros) but they might be stupid (this is the Government, after all) and blanket ban filesharing because of copyright infringement.